t3 




The 

False Peace 

Protectionism Means 
Endless Conflict 



By 
HENRI LAMBERT 

Manufacturer in ' Charleroi, Belgium 

Titular Member of the Societe d'Economie Politique, 
of Paris 



The International Free Trade League 

38 ST. BOTOLPH STREET 
BOSTON, MASS. 




International Free Trade League 

38 ST. BOTOLPH STREET, BOSTON, MASS. 

A League to INDUCE Peace 

OBJECT : to free production by abolishing all such restrictions as 

taxes, licenses and other economic barriers to the free exchange 

of the products of men's labor in all parts of the world. 

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 



James H. Dillard 
William C. Edwards 
Edmund C. Evans 
Frank W. Garrison 
3oLTON Hall 
Charles H. Ingersoll 



Richard Mayer 

Western Starr 

Frank Stephens 

Emanuel Sternheim 

Ellen Winsor 

Daniel Kiefer, Treasurer 



Kenneth B. Elliman, Secretary 



ARGENTINA 
Alberto Alves de Lima 
Ferdinand Lodi 

AUSTRALIA 

E. J. Craigie 
A. G. Huie 
Cyril F. James 

AUSTRIA 
Julius Meinl 

BELGIUM 
Sen. Henri LaFontaine 
Henri Lambert 

BRAZIL 
A. de Queiros Telles 

CANADA 
Christine Ross Barker 
D. W. Buchanan 

F. J. Dixon, M.L.A. 
W. A. Douglass, M.A. 
Harriet Dunlop Prenter 
CTiarles P. Rice 

CHINA 
Dr. W. E. Macklin 
Sun Yat Sen 

ALABAMA 
Ernest B. Gaston 
ARKANSAS 
Dr. Robert McAdam 

CALIFORNIA 
Dr. David Starr Jordan 
J. H. Ryckman 
Upton Sinclair 

CONNECTICUT 
Mary B. Ely 
Theodore Schroeder 
DELAWARE 
Donald Stephens 
DIST. OF COLUMBIA 
Charles T. Hallinan 
Hon. J. H. Ralston 
IDAHO 

G. M. Paulsen 

ILLINOIS 
Otto Cullman 
George E. Dawson 
Fay Lewis 
Francis Neilson 

INDIANA 
J. H. McGiU 

MARYLAND 
H. Martin Williams 



ADVISORY COMMITTEE 



DENMARK 
Dr. Georg Brandes 

ENGLAND 
Henry Bool 
Francis W. Hirst 
J. A. Hobson 
George Lansbury 
Arnold Lupton, M.E. 
E. D. Morel 
H. M. Swanwick, Mj\. 
Col. J. C. Wedgwood,M.P. 
Charles Wicksteed, J.P. 

FRANCE 
Georges Darien 
Ernest Mansuy 

GERMANY 
Prof. G. F. Nicolai 
Lida Gustava Heymann 

INDIA 

N. S. Hardiker 

MEXICO 
Linn A. E. Gale 

MASSACHUSETTS 
Wm. Lloyd Garrison, Jr. 
Frank Grant 
Dr. William A. Neilson 
John Orth 

MICHIGAN 
Wilber Brotherton 
S. G. Howe 
Frederick F. Ingram 

MINNESOTA 
C. J. Buell 
S. A. Stockwell 

MISSISSIPPI 
Prof. Calvin S. Brown 

MISSOURI 
R. C. Marr 
Judge James M. Rea 
NEW JERSEY 
Hon. Mark M. Fagan 
Dr. Mary D. Hussey 

NEW YORK 
Crystal Eastman 
Dr. A. L. Goldwater 
Hon. Frederic C. Howe 
Fanny Garrison Villard 



NETHERLANDS 
Hon. J. T. Cremer 
Dr. A. Van Daehne van 
Varick 

NEW ZEALAND 
Hon. George Fowlds 
P. J. O'Regan, M.P. 

NORWAY 
Governor Hakon Loken 

RUSSIA 
L. A. K. Martens 
Santeri Nuorteva 

SCOTLAND 
Harry Llewelyn Davies 

SPAIN 
Antonio Albendin 
Baldomero Argente 

SWITZERLAND 
Jean Debrit 
Dr. Auguste Forel 
Dr. Raoul Gerber 
URUGUAY 
Dr. Felix Vitale 

OHIO 

Edmund Vance Cooke 
Dr. J. E. Tuckerman 
Fred S. Wallace 
A. L. Weatherly. D.D. 

OREGON 
Col. C. E. S. Wood 
PENNSYLVANIA 

Eliza Middleton Cope 
A. Warren Kelsey 
C. F. Shandrew 
Marshall E. Smith 

TENNESSEE 
Bolton Smith 

TEXAS 
William A. Black 
John Davis 

WASHINGTON 
William Bouck 
W. E Brokaw 

WISCONSIN 
Zona Gale 
Dr. J. Weller Long 



\ 



By Transfer 

APR 14 1923 



lyuA-^, 



The False Peace 

Protectionism Means Endless Conflict 



THE nations have "concluded peace." The vanquished have 
subscribed to the protectionist peace. The sense of insecur- 
ity among nations remains, — it is even accentuated. Everyone 
feels it, everyone deplores it and declares that after four years i^ 
of immense military effort to overthrow autocracies, followed 
by ten months of study during which the leaders of both hemi- 
spheres discussed the problem of organizing the relationships of 
the democratized peoples, the chief result is a large scrap of 
diplomatic paper. It does not seem to be realized that if nothing 
is settled, if the future seems less certain than ever, it is doubtless 
because "the conventions of peace" are not based on any inherent 
and essential principle of international truth, justice and morality. 
Necessity or natural law is superior to human will and custom. 
Nor could a popular "will to peace" prevent new and worse wars 
from following closely on the heels of the one just ended if it con- 
tinued to disregard the law of unity as expressed and revealed 
by the nature of things. 

To give a more concrete illustration of our meaning let us 
take President Wilson's Fourteen Points as an example. They 
were for the most part concessions to political empiricism, com- 
promises with false conceptions which have hitherto prevailed in 
international relations. But the Third Point, inspired by philo- 
sophic truth, set forth the natural and permanent internationaJ 
requirements. It provided the necessary economic foundatio'^ 
for peaceful intercourse between nations. Since the econonMC 
needs of man are his most vital needs, his economic activi/'^s, 
interests and rights are immediate and fundamental. Harmoi'^ous 
intercourse must, from the very nature of things, be depf/ident 
upon the economic conditions. Is it not clear that nati/^'C has 
provided for the economic interdependence and unity of the 
nations by the unequal distribution over the surface of the globe 

3 



of the available materials of wealth necessary to mankind? Does 
not co-operation in the free exchange of economic services become 
for them a first necessity, and consequently a primary moral 
obligation ? Harmony and peaceful intercourse, whether between 
individuals or nations, are impossible unless based on this first 
principle of freedom, justice and morality. 

It will be recalled that the third of the Fourteen Points de- 
manded "The removal, as far as possible, of all economic barriers, 
and the establishment of an equality of trade conditions among 
all the nations consenting to the peace and associating together for 
its maintenance." It laid down the principle, the primary condi- 
tion; it provided the very basis for a genuine association of 
peoples, a real League of Nations. Now, the various Wilson 
Points have received a broad application with the exception of 
the third, which has been utterly ignored. The peace lacks its 
natural and essential foundation. Therefore there is not, there 
cannot be, peace ! 

Germany is especially to blame, for, in the reply made by 
Count Brockdorff-Rantzau to the Allies' treaty proposal, while 
seeming at first to rely on the Third Point, the words he used were 
devoid of precision or clearness, but were couched in sibylline 
terms (a "universal commercial treaty" was proposed) which 
would have justified every suspicion, had they been able to chal- 
lenge serious attention. Now, it was more incumbent upon 
Germany than upon any other nation to demand a thoroughgoing 
application of the Third Point, by means of a gradual inaugura- 
tion of universal Free Trade. What she could have done, and 
ought to have done, was to make her acceptance of the peace 
treaty rest upon it, declaring herself ready for the immediate 
abolition of her own economic barriers. Had she done so, she 
would have taken an impregnable diplomatic position, a position 
that could not be attacked by the allied diplomats, and irreproach- 
able before history. She lamentably, stupidly failed to do so. 

This new blunder of Germany (of all nations the most imbued 
with false theories, the most "learned" in error and ignorant of 
truth) in no way excuses the serious fault of the rulers of the 
allied democracies. The British Prime Minister said recently in 
the House of Commons that he "defied anyone to show that the 

4 



peace treaty was lacking in justice or wisdom." I accept Lloyd 
George's challenge and affirm it to be without wisdom or justice. 
The treaty is fundamentally and thoroughly unjust, since we 
deny our late enemies economic equality; that is to say, equality 
in fundamental human rights. It is unwise, because, while impos- 
ing indemnities on Germany, it forbids her the only two means 
of paying, viz.: either colonies in proportion to her needs, or, 
preferably, free trade with the colonies of other nations. It is 
supremely lacking in wisdom because war results from inequality 
of territorial possessions, of ''places in the sun," of empires; and 
because, by its tendencies, its spirit, and the monopoHes it sanc- 
tions, the treaty has greatly emphasized and aggravated this chief 
cause of wars, whether past or future. 

The Paris "peace conventions" have too clearly the effect, if 
not the purpose, of sacrificing the civilization of the world in order 
to satisfy the predatory designs of a few Great Powers. Having 
waged endless wars against weak nations, and conquered an 
enormous part of the territories and natural resources which the 
planet offers to all mankind, they now propose to retain them by 
force. (This is called ''reaping the fruits of victory.") If they 
persist .in such enterprises of national plunder, sooner or later 
deserved and inexorable punishment will overtake them. In the 
meantime, it is a simple matter of self-interest for these nations, 
only too well provided with places in the sun, to proclaim their 
desire for peace, implying thereby a permanent territorial status 
quo as well as the possession and exclusive use of the natural 
riches which ought, by exchange, to be made the common pos- 
session of all mankind. 

But will this peace of the Great Allies with its imperialism, 
its protectionism, its monopolies— its British, French, America//, 
Italian and Japanese Imperial Preference— will it long satisfy tAe 
cheated and despoiled nations which comprise the rest of hurr-i"- 
ity ?^ They will abhor it within ten years,— as soon, in fact, as /hey 
realize the iniquity which has been treacherously imposed upon 
them, unwelcome guests at Nature's banquet table. 

How can the numerous small democracies into which Central 
and Eastern Europe have been subdivided live in peace-'' How 
can they live at all if, in imitation of the great protect/onist and 
imperialist democracies of the old world and the new, they seek 

5 



isolation and "protect" themselves against each other? How can 
these young democracies enjoy economic and political prosperity, 
how can they survive if French, American and British protection- 
ism monopolizes the greater part of the world's resources? 

The protectionist peace of the "allied democracies" is anti- 
democratic, absurd and iniquitous. It is an oppressive peace, im- 
posed by force in defiance of right. That is my reply to Lloyd 
George.^ 

The statesmen gathered at Paris were the masters of human 
destiny. It was their duty, and it was within their power, to 
solve the international problem once for all, making further wars 
useless and conquest and annexation an absurdity. But they 
could only do so by making a Free Trade peace, gradually open- 
ing the world to free economic intercourse in which all countries 
would be on equal terms, thus making the whole earth a "place 
in the sun" for every nation. A pax economica is the only pos- 
sible anti-imperialist and anti-militarist peace, the only democratic 
peace, the only fundamentally just, wise and true peace. ^ 



^Also to M. Clemenceau who considers that the Treaty of Versailles 
"is nevertheless, a fine treaty" . . . since it consecrates "a peace of human 
solidarity." Thus, the statesman chosen as President of the great council 
of humanity at the gravest moment of history was, in common with those 
who surrounded him at Paris and Versailles, ignorant of the fact that 
human solidarity must in the nature of things begin with economic condi- 
tions, man's vital needs — food, clothing and shelter. And this happens in 
the 20th century, after fifty years of industrial civilization. And we are 
surprised at the disastrous results of such romantic politics ! 

^ As long ago as 1908, during the discussions over the annexation of the 
independent Congo State by Belgium, the present writer proposed the inter- 
nationalization of this colony, which might thus have formed the nucleus 
?if a great international State, comprising the various colonies of the Congo, 
\ench, English, German, Portuguese and Belgian. This international 
cflonial domain would have been open to the free economic activities of 
al^ations on a basis of absolute equality. Although its adoption might 
ha^tt dissipated the black clouds then overshadowing Europe, the project 
did^ot meet with favor either in Belgium or elsewhere. 

^om that time to 1914 the writer has embraced every opportunity to 
explij^ that the adoption of the open door policy — or at least equal treat- 
ment lor all nations — in all the European colonies would supply the means, 
and th» only hope of escaping a European conflagration. He believes that 
this plati is still the only one capable of contributing effectively to the 
solution ^ the international crisis. 

Immejjiate free trade with the colonies — ^while we are waiting for 
universal 5.ree Trade — would brighten with the light of truth and justice a 
sky hitherto charged with the clouds of ignorance and injustice that 
overhang most of the nations and their governments. 



\ 



During the whole length of the war Free Trade offered the 
desirable and practicable solution. As I never ceased by speech 
and pen to insist from the beginning of the great conflict, both in 
England and the United States, this principle was alone powerful 
enough to bring the war promptly to an end and create a definite 
sense of international security, thereby averting revolution and 
anarchy and saving the world from barbarism. It required, how- 
ever, not only in Germany but in the Allied and Associated 
countries as well, an understanding that was everywhere tragically 
lacking — a comprehension of true international needs, of political 
wisdom, philosophy and foresight. 

In all countries and in every circle in Europe everyone, from 
the Pope, the emperors, kings, presidents of Republics and heads 
of governments, to the lesser politicians, professors and writers, — 
everyone (or so we like to beHeve for the honor of mankind) 
sincerely tried from the first to the last day of the war to put an 
"honorable" end to the abominable and shameful international 
drama of mutual slaughter and destruction. But they all relied 
either on childish, artificial or insincere political combinations, or 
on territorial dickering or more or less oppressive economic 
machinations. They mistook for ''realities" a base materialism 
which stimulated their appetites while exasperating their preju- 
dices and passions. No one took the trouble to seek agreement 
in the only feasible way, by satisfying the natural, common and 
fundamental needs of the nations in acknowledgment of inter- 
national morality, a course dictated alike by nature and the 
force of circumstances. 

At the Peace Conference the Four did their worst. Instead 
of warning the civilized world against the old errors which wer^? 
the underlying cause of the wars of the past; instead of instruj^' 
ing the nations in economic freedom, the fundamental truth ^^ 
internationalism; instead of imposing Free Trade so sf^ely 
needed by the whole Continent upon Germany and Centra/ ^^^ 
Eastern Europe,^ and promising to adopt it themselves ;'i the 
near future, these great statesmen (themselves victims jf the 
protectionist superstition, if not of contemptible sch^^ies of 
domestic poHtics and party interest) seem to have done -heir best 



' Cf . Yves-Guyot : Les Causes et les Consequences de la Gverre. 

7 



LIBRARY 0»^ CONGRESS 



1 


! 


il ;| 


ti 











021 140 230 1 
to avoid, either by word or deed, disturbing the Great Powers in 
the exercise of their shameful, wicked and criminal policy. 

The Treaty of Paris has not succeeded in creating a sense of 
international security. It has not only failed to do so, but by 
giving the sanction of an international agreement to the violation 
of the primary rights of nations, it has greatly increased the 
sense of insecurity. It has thus compromised, perhaps irremedi- 
ably, the possibility of a solution to the social problem. If it is 
not promptly amended so as to give a vigorous application to the 
Free Trade principle, permitting the association of all countries 
in a genuine League of Nations based on economic and political 
co-operation,, this so-called treaty of peace will condemn the world 
to an indefinite period of wars, revolutions and counter-revolu- 
tions, and international and social anarchy, leading inevitably to 
barbarism. 

Henri Lambert. 



\ 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS ^ 



021 140 230 1 



Hollinger 

pH8.5 

Mill Run F3-1 955 



